The Pubiclicans always spent money and always liked spending money. It is OK as long as it is what they want to spend it on. It is only not OK when it is some Liberal Cause. That is why they should be called the Tax-Cut and Spend Republicans.

If any of you would care to go back and look, a consistent criticism of President Bush by Conservative Republicans was that he was spending our money like a Democrat. The Republican majority in Congress did the same thing, and lost the support of Conservative Republicans because of it (see "elections, 2006.")

How will you so-vocal complainers judge the Democrat-controlled Congress's spending?

rpm - an unfortunate trend in recent years is that the national Republican party is acting more and more like Democrats.

I wondered if the critics who have already posted (including our intrepid host) will be as critical of spending under a Democrat congress? Is it the spending they decry, or Republican spending? This is a lesson in moral relativism.

I find it ironic that the New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain in their respective primary races. The New York Times will not endorse McCain over Clinton in the general election, so the question is, why did they endorse him in the first place? Two possible reasons: 1) McCain will be the easiest to defeat in November; or 2) Among the Republican candidates, his political positions most closely resembles Hillary Clinton's.

Wordkyle is correct, the elected repubs in congress and the white house have abandoned the conservative principles and not acted as outlined by conservative beliefs. And no matter who is in any office from whatever party, they need to be scrutinized and criticized when they do stupid things.

Bush was the first to propose a 2 trillion dollar budget in 2002 and now six years later he is proposing a 3 trillion dollar budget. Pure craziness.

Being a Democrat who supports pay as you go if anyone remembers that, our country is on the verge of a deep recession and more loss of jobs.

Bush is trying to keep the economy afloat by spending. Since we are sending manufacturing jobs to China and India, we are left with making weapons.

Republican leaders are behind John McCain because they think he will draw independent and Democrats and keep the White House. They are counting on Democrats NOT going with Hillary if she is the nominee.

Wanting a balanced budget, the concern I have as a voter is Obama becoming the nominee and becoming the next president.

I think you will see a lot of foreign aid going to Africa and a lot of spending on welfare. What concerns me most about Obama is how he plans to make health care affordable for all those who are unisured. He doesn't have a plan and I don't think with his liberal supporters (Ted Kennedy) and crowd he will know where to start to address this serious problem.

At this point, if the vote comes down to Obama and McCain, I think I'm joining my family and for the very first time, not vote in the Presidential election.

All politics are local and our local governments including schools are spending like there is no end to the money.

Government spending is not a problem for voters because most voters are spending more than they make.

The mortgage mess is an example of how people bought houses bigger than they could afford with 100% financing, interest only payments and an adjustable rate mortage.

A big interest rate reduction to bail out big banks for their bad lending practices, will decrease my income from savings by $5,000 this coming year. Seniors who depend on their savings are being punished!

We live in a time when spending is rewarded, saving is punished. I think I heard it is a New Economy.

At the county level alone, decisions are being made that will increase the taxpayer's bill this coming year.

Looking at the candidates running, I doubt there will be any change in leadership. And a change may not be for the better since both parties like to spend.

Spending other people's money must be fun or give little people power????

Until the people really suffer, nothing is going to change at the local, state or national level. Even then, the pundits will tell the people how to think and they will follow.

Or someone will come on the scence, a savior, and ask the people to give him power to change the world. History tells us what happens and it never turns out good.

Letter to the editor, Ted H. Shaw from Boyd wrote that Hillary will downsize the military. Shaw said "Do you realize that is how Bill balanced the budget when he was president?"

Then he encourages some mischief in the Democratic primary by urging you to vote against Hillary Clinton in the March 4 primary.

He thinks McCain is going to win today freeing up Republicans to cross over to vote against Hillary.

Voting against Hillary is voting for Obama, right?

I wonder what pundit Shaw is listening to.

This is a very bad idea. There are some important races at the local level for voters. We need a good county attorney who has a proven record of public service. We need Joe Tison to send Phil King home so local folks can be represented.

And if Ted Shaw votes in the Democratic Primary, he becomes a member of the Democratic Party. Then I'm sure he will go straight to hell for being a Democrat.

I have been a long-time Republican (at the national level--doesn't make much sense at the lower levels), and I am really disappointed in both parties. I think they ALL spend! The only difference is WHAT they spend it on. To quote an old Kingston Trio song entitled THE MERRY MINUET, "...and I don't like anybody very much."

Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe the 410 billion includes the 300-500 billion in interest we will pay on the 10 trillion dollar national debt. Bush will also come back and ask for "emergency" funds for the wars as the budget only has about 50 billion in it. Will anyone say "This is really a trillion dollar deficit."

"Republican leaders are behind John McCain because they think he will draw independent and Democrats and keep the White House. They are counting on Democrats NOT going with Hillary if she is the nominee."

You must not be watching the same Republican leaders as I am, because the party mouthpieces (Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, et. al.) are LOSING THEIR MINDS over McCain being the nominee. In fact, Ann Coulter said that she would vote for Hillary before she voted for McCain (Devil you know over Devil you don't know, I suppose).The Republican party is sort of fractured right now. Peole think Huckabee is hurtong Romney, whom they think is the most conservative of the candidates that are left. Then there's Ron Paul, who, if you listen to him, makes some sense on some things.I just wish Newt Gingrich would make a late run. He may not win, but at least Conservatives would have a candididate we could endorse with a straight face.Good day, all!

Attempted to allow openly homosexual men and women to serve in the armed forces.

Launched the first official White House website.

Attempted to impliment a national healthcare plan.

Dodged impeachment due to purgery in the Lewinsky scandal.

Instituted a policy of "regime change" against Iraq.

Led a four-day bombing campaign in Iraq: Operation Desert Fox

The first president to visit Vietnam since the end of the Vietnam War.

Oversaw a boom of the U.S. economy which ended the last year of his final term. Also, the U S had a PROJECTED federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969.

Authorized $100 million counter-terrorism agreement with Israel to track down and root out terrorists.(didn't work)

Allowed terrorist Osama Bin Ladin to escape arrest.

Vetoed the partial birth abortian ban.

Proven that weak ethics and morals, as well as being untrustworthy has nothing to do with being popular.

I do not understand how this country would take a chance and allow this legacy to be repeated. I definitely will not support many of the policies of the current administration, but two wrongs don't make a right...

You got to be either the dumbest person in Wise County or your are that blinded by the right hand of the Republican party stuck up your arse for you to speak.

What else do you have other than oral sex in your argument?

Its all about the money Crane. Six years and not a nickel left for our children's children ...

How many dead moms, dads, sons & daughters with a country that had nothing to do with 911.

How many civil liberties have been taken?

Dude the list goes on and on ... I often wonder what someone like you looks like???? I would guess some dumb ass in the fast lane of 287 going 60 mph with a Jesus sticker on the rear next to your faded yellow ribbon decal made in china.

The $400 BILLION deficit does not include most of Iraq/Afghanistan spending as it is "off budget." So toss another $200 billion in there for those war expenses. Even if we pull out of Iraq there will be huge costs involved. Deficits pile up interest so we'll be paying FOREVER. Thanks a lot to Bush and his Republican enablers.

no-name 6:44 - I was indeed around during the Reagan years and, maybe more importantly, the Carter years. The contrast is startling, "working man:"

The prime rate when Reagan took office was 20%. When he left office it was 10.5%. Do you remember those high-interest loans, working man? I do.

In 1979, inflation was 13.3%. In 1982, after Reagan took office, it was <4%. Except for a few spikes, inflation has not been a major concern for 26 years. Do you remember when inflation was robbing us of our savings and eating into our paychecks, working man? I do.